get_proposal_proposer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'gets' an address, implying a read operation, but does not confirm that it is a read-only on-chain call, nor does it mention potential reverts, network requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, 'Get the address that created a proposal', that is front-loaded and conveys the core purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents the parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description states the return value (an address) and is not misleading, yet it lacks context about error scenarios, which networks are supported, or how this relates to other governance tools. Overall it is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (network, proposalId, governorAddress), providing clear definitions for each. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get the address that created a proposal' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (the proposer address), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling governance tools like get_proposal_details by focusing specifically on the proposer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other governance tools such as get_proposal_details or get_voting_power. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.